"We are unable to provide refunds or exchanges for mistaken purchases" becomes "Refunds or exchanges for mistaken purchases are unable to be provided."
[1] https://www.ranker.com/list/times-politicians-used-passive-v...
> The suspect produced a semi-automatic handgun and fired numerous times striking the victim in the torso.
> The suspect then ran towards the officers still armed with the sword and an officer-involved-shooting occurred.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...
Like, this is a well-known enough thought process that the person I responded to had already felt a need to dig into this themselves before, only they dug into it wrong as a misinterpretation of the claim. Where I'd say we currently stand is thereby "seems like a credible hypothesis worthy of discussion". If anything, I can see a more useful way to ding the original claim here -- based on my knowledge of this ongoing discussion -- but it isn't to whine about how they should have already needed to provide evidence in their initial post, and nor certainly is it "I found a bunch of counter examples".
But even that seems like a non-sequitur as the interesting thing here clearly wasn't an attempt to sideline us into a discussion about police but was instead just an attempt to make a wider discussion about annoying usage of passive voice and other language shenanigans to avoid directly admitting blame or control -- which is an entirely fair point and I will strongly claim is a fully valid thing to be discussing and criticizing of this statement by Nintendo -- and while I could see reasonably pushing back on it in that light in a ton of ways, again: that set doesn't include whining about citations during a discussion and likely doesn't include defenses of oblique rebuttals :(.